The arrest was Burnsides idea and history records that Lincoln was chagrined about the development. Vallandigham was a former congressman at the time.
"Wrong. One of the house's journals has been found and shows a quorum. The other is missing but little reason exists to doubt it as all the newspapers reported they had a quorum and gave the vote totals."
Newspaper accounts to do not constitute "official records." An official record would show who was present and how they voted. There is no telling who attended ex-Gov. Jackson's road show. Nor is there a record that Jackson properly noticed the special session, even if he were still entitled to act.
"Wrong. The 16th amendment gives Congress the power to collect taxes upon income, thus superseding any inhibition upon it from doing so. That amendment did not exist in 1861."
Correct, a later Court case invalidated the income tax (in 1895, because it was not apportioned among the states in conformity with the Constitution). The reason you originally cited (diminished compensation for federal judges) borders on the ridiculous.
"And I ask you again, do you believe there is something wrong with a judge writing about legal topics?"
Nothing at all wrong with writing; however, to prepare opinions prior to hearing a case suggests the political motivation of someone uninterested in hearing arguments.
"Now you're simply being slothful. Nobody disputes that he raised the army, nobody disputes that he brought it to DC, and nobody disputes that he brought it there BEFORE Virginia seceded."
No, you are simply in denial. Virginia was involved in rebellion prior to any new federal troops arriving in Washington, D.C. (the first of the units being the 6th Massachusetts, which arrived on April 19-20). The "ratification" of the Legislatures act of secession took place on May 23, but the die was cast on April 17.
"Yet for some reason thousands upon thousands of them were carted into Washington."
By July, McDowell was able to muster about 30,000 men for the first battle at Bull Run. Fremont, in Missouri, had about 40,000 by July. McClellan and others had about 20,000 men for operations in loyal western Virgina. I would say more of the 75,000 90-day enlistees went somewhere else.
If, as you say, Virgina was still part of the Union in late April and May (although the government of the State in no way acted like it was), then Lincoln had every right to post soldiers or sailors there in its defense, and that of the federal District of Columbia, or to mount offensives against the disloyal.
"The claim upon arsenals, BTW, was a highly disputed legal matter at the time and even southern unionists wanted the ones in their states placed in state hands."
It was a highly disputed political issue. There was no legal issue - they were federal armories and arsenals an their seizure by secessionists or state governments was criminal.
"There's a giant mob of left wing wackos walking through the streets of New York City right now. They've stolen and vandalized all sorts of stuff, but is that a reasonable basis to call in the army and send them in to invade and conquer the state of New York?"
You are coming unhinged. I imagine you have a tough time swallowing the "party of Lincoln" and "legacy of Lincoln" tributes.
If the protesters in NYC begin to act violently like they acted in Seattle, and elsewhere, during similar protests, the local authorities should be able to handle it. If they can't handle it, they will no doubt call in the National Guard. Petty theft, vandalism, and lewd conduct is a far cry from seizing naval shipyards and warships, burning bridges, ripping up railroads, and taking arsenals.
If the wackos held a mass meeting in Central Park and declared that NYC was seceding from the Union, you would certainly support them, wouldn't you?
Well his "chagrin" certainly wasn't enough to prompt him to intervene! A captain is master of his ship and responsible for what those under him do.
Newspaper accounts to do not constitute "official records."
Nor did I say that they did. I did however note that one of the two houses does have an official record contrary to your claim (I informed you of it several months ago BTW, thus making your honesty suspect here). As to the other, the journal simply has not been found. That being the case you have absolutely no basis on which to categorically declare the absence of a quorum, especially considering that the papers reported one was present thus making it likely that the other journal would show the same thing.
There is no telling who attended ex-Gov. Jackson's road show.
There is on the Senate side at least. The journal survived and is displayed at the Wilson's Creek National Battlefield. We don't, at the present, know every house member who attended though we do know some based on individual documentation, and we know what the papers reported as a number. For example, we know the speaker of the house was there and several members who mentioned it individually in letters and the sort. Perhaps a journal will turn up one day and settle the matter, but as it stands you have no basis for arbitrarily declaring the absence of a quorum.
Nor is there a record that Jackson properly noticed the special session
The Senate is known to have properly called itself to order and the House clerks, secretaries, etc. are all known to have been there. John C. Moore, one of the first period historians to record the events in Missouri, also specifically contradicts your claim:
In every particular it [the Neosho session] complied with the forms of law. It was called together in extraordinary session by the proclamation of the governor. There was a quorum of each house present. The governor sent to the two houses his message recommending, among other things, the passage of an act "dissolving all political connection between the State of Missouri and the United States of America." The ordinance was passed strictly in accordance with law and parliamentary usage, was signed by the presiding officers of the two houses, attested by John T. Crisp, secretary of the senate, and Thomas M. Murray, clerk of the house, and approved by Claiborne F. Jackson, governor of the State.The reason you originally cited (diminished compensation for federal judges) borders on the ridiculous.
Nonsense. The taxing of income diminished their compensation, pure and simple. That tax was unconstitutional any way for a whole slew of other reasons, but the fact remains that it took the 16th amendment to get around the unconstitutionality problem, part of which was the compensation clause.
Nothing at all wrong with writing; however, to prepare opinions prior to hearing a case suggests the political motivation of someone uninterested in hearing arguments.
What you keep describing as "opinions" were in fact personal letters, research documents, and writings that Taney composed. On another note, for somebody who objects so vehemently to Taney's drafting of articles on legal topics before cases arose, you sure are quick to plaster forums like these with excerpts from Bill Rehnquist's now-invalidated speech at a law school. In short, it seems that you believe judges are only allowed to write up a position when that position agrees with your own.
No, you are simply in denial.
It's no matter of denial. The troops were there a month before Virgina seceded. To suggest otherwise is simply slothful.
By July, McDowell was able to muster about 30,000 men for the first battle at Bull Run. Fremont, in Missouri, had about 40,000 by July. McClellan and others had about 20,000 men for operations in loyal western Virgina. I would say more of the 75,000 90-day enlistees went somewhere else.
Really? Cause it looks to me as if Lincoln sent them around in comparably sized units. It also looks as if he filled Washington JUST as I said he did - with thousands and thousands of troops.
If, as you say, Virgina was still part of the Union in late April and May (although the government of the State in no way acted like it was), then Lincoln had every right to post soldiers or sailors there in its defense
Which, according to the Declaration, is the exact same argument used by King George. Thank you for proving my point for me.
It was a highly disputed political issue. There was no legal issue - they were federal armories and arsenals an their seizure by secessionists or state governments was criminal.
Then I'll ask you again. Was Sam Houston, who told state authorities to arrange the transfer of federal properties to the state of Texas, a criminal?
If the protesters in NYC begin to act violently like they acted in Seattle, and elsewhere, during similar protests, the local authorities should be able to handle it.
Which is what the founders said King George should've done in 1776. But instead he called in the army - he used the military to supplant the civil authority. Thank you for proving another of my points. You're on a roll at dismantling your own argument today!
If the wackos held a mass meeting in Central Park and declared that NYC was seceding from the Union, you would certainly support them, wouldn't you?
In all honesty, I'd say good riddance, wish them well, and gloat in the fact that New York State, absent its largest Democrat voter dumpster, would soon be sending two new Republicans to the U.S. Senate.